HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » French Study Finds Tumors...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:20 PM

 

French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company's popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study released on Wednesday.

The study could have a big impact on the battle over a California ballot proposal that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. Monsanto has already donated $7.1 million to the campaign to defeat the proposal, known as Proposition 37.

The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto's patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly.

"It's bizarre and dramatic for us that the US government," said Séralini, "has not requested to make serious tests before releasing these products into the environment because these GMOs are pesticide sponges, and we know that pesticides can be harmful to humans."


http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn


31 replies, 1560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn (Original post)
No Compromise Jan 2013 OP
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #1
Canuckistanian Jan 2013 #2
No Compromise Jan 2013 #3
Canuckistanian Jan 2013 #19
Berlum Jan 2013 #9
Igel Jan 2013 #4
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #12
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #29
MineralMan Jan 2013 #5
mike_c Jan 2013 #6
MineralMan Jan 2013 #7
mike_c Jan 2013 #11
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #8
ananda Jan 2013 #13
Berlum Jan 2013 #10
trotsky Jan 2013 #14
mike_c Jan 2013 #18
Berlum Jan 2013 #22
trotsky Jan 2013 #27
SidDithers Jan 2013 #28
mike_c Jan 2013 #16
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #15
mike_c Jan 2013 #17
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #20
mike_c Jan 2013 #21
Berlum Jan 2013 #23
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #24
Berlum Jan 2013 #25
samsingh Jan 2013 #26
Prometheus Bound Jan 2013 #30
FarCenter Jan 2013 #31

Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:22 PM

1. So Roundup is harmless?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:24 PM

2. Old article from Sept. 19

And that California ballot proposal was defeated. Monsanto won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:48 PM

3. posting in response to propaganda piece about 'environmentalist' who changed mind about GM foods lol

 

what a freaking joke that was, can't find the thread, but if Monsanto is going to pay people to post crap, the least we can do is respond with the truth.

As Gil Scott Heron said "They got folks out there working for war" (they have plenty of money to pay posters)...

"We have to work for peace" (and justice everywhere) twice as hard and for free, if we are going to counter their assault on humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:47 PM

19. Ah...

Carry on, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:14 PM

9. Rats still messed up with genetically mutant tumors in 2013

Still NEWS for most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:50 PM

4. Only believers believe this study.

Too many methodological problems with it to be credible.

With *every* study you first read the abstract to see if it's worth reading.

Then you read the conclusion to see if it's worth reading.

Then you go through the protocols and methodology to see if it's worth believing. Do they have a reasonable default hypothesis? Are the protocols reasonable and sound? What are the odds that the results you're seeing are the 3rd, 9th, and 23rd run, with the remaining ones tossed because they were "wrong"? Are the stats appropriate? Are they implemented correctly? Do the conclusions seem consistent with the stats?

Then there are the bigger picture aspects to the article, but Seralini's failed the little-picture tests.

People can believe what they want. Which explains why Seralini's study, like others before it, still get brain time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

12. Monsanto spend millions of dollars to block buyer education, scientific studies, etc.

 

When a beekeeper was studying the effects of Roundup etc. upon a hive, Monsanto had the bees seized and destroyed. When an independent lab was doing the same, Monsanto bought them and killed the study.

Negatives add up. Significantly. If their product isn't harmful, they'd happily support testing and labelling, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:57 AM

29. Peer review says your analysis is bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:01 PM

5. Once again, I do not believe you understand the material you

are quoting here. Quoting from advocacy groups without understanding the material often leads to the spread of factual errors. This is very likely occurring in your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:03 PM

6. old article, thoroughly debunked previously....

Bad science from the get-go. Keep googling-- you'll find the refutations too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

7. Hmm...actually, I think we'll see more of this.

I'm not sure the refutations will be found. Just a guess, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:26 PM

11. I suspect you're right....

Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

8. Not really.

There have been NO long term studies on the effects of GMO foods. This study was unique in that it found tumors after the period when Monsanto conveniently ended their test. I'm not going to dismiss that study (I have degrees in biology and food science, thank you) until someone actually conducts long term studies on those foods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:31 PM

13. Well, if Monsanto debunked it..

.. it has to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:21 PM

10. 'Debunked' by who? Monsanto said the study “does not meet minimum acceptable standards"

Thick is the Scientific Materialist Orthodoxy and strong is the corporate campaign against Free Will.

"In a written response to Nature’s questions, Séralini and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, president of CRIIGEN and a co-author of the paper, say that they have been surprised by the “violence” and immediacy of scientists’ criticisms.

"They argue that most of the critics are not toxicologists, and suggest that some may have competing interests, including working to develop transgenic crops...."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rat-study-sparks-furor-over-genetically-modified-foods

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:35 PM

14. But what about chemtrails?

How will your Free Will withstand the onslaught of the Scientific Materialist Orthodoxy when they are spraying their mind-control chemicals on you??!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:47 PM

18. dammit....

You weren't supposed to let the feline out of the saccule about the mind-control chemicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:55 PM

22. Clearly they are getting to you

or you would realize you are a egregious VIOLATOR

The ch**trails are a FORBIDDEN DISCUSSION on DU. Obviously, some in this thread FAIL to respect not only free will but also community standards of decency. Shocking. Just shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:50 PM

27. Do you understand why they are forbidden?

Because they are conspiracy garbage. You should have learned this from your previous banning, SpiralHawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:51 PM

28. No. Belief in Chemtrails is forbidden at DU...

mockery of belief in chemtrails is just fine.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:41 PM

16. France's own six science academies denounced it as flawed and misleading...

...as did the European Food Safety Authority and many more scholars and academicians world wide. Come on, you can do your own research!

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/

An intensively promoted and controversial French study claiming to find high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and “safe” levels of the herbicide Roundup has been dismissed in a rare joint statement from France’s six scientific academies. Here’s a link to the statement (in French). Here’s an excerpt from coverage of the academies’ statement by Agence France-Presse:

“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors….

Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday.

The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.

The academies’ statement is just the latest rejection of the conclusions by the paper’s authors, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a scientist at the University of Caen who has long campaigned against genetically modified foods and attracted criticism for flawed science. Earlier this month the European Food Safety Authority concluded that the rat study’s statistical and methodological weaknesses precluded its being used in safety evaluations...."

more@link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:38 PM

15. That'd be because the USDA is a bought and paid for subsidiary of Big Agriculture

Monsanto and ADM and ConAgra et al; why do you think the USDA maintains price supports on sugar at a significant level above world market price? To discourage domestic production and importation of cane and beet sugar in favour of high-fructose corn syrup, as a massive subsidy to corporate agriculture. Why were there subsidies for corn ethanol (which is about break-even on energy input vs return and doesn't do anything to reduce oil dependence)? As a handout to corporate agriculture. Why don't the USDA and FDA require more rigorous testing of GM food crops? Same reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:44 PM

17. do you really think all six French science academies and the European Food Safety Authority...

...are all paid shills of Monsanto? All the scholars around the world who have denounced the flaws in this study? We're all on Monsanto's pay roll? REALLY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:48 PM

20. You're just a stooge for Big Scientific Method

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:50 PM

21. (hangs head in shame....)

No seriously, if Monsanto owes me beer and travel money I want it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:57 PM

23. There have always been people swilling to settle

?1294369766

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:03 PM

24. Really? I'm speaking more to the other things than the specific issue referenced.

Do you deny the points about the HFCS and ethanol subsidies? You mean 40% of the US corn crop last year went for ethanol for any other reason than the fact that it was subsidised? Or that HFCS is far more common than sucrose in the USA because of subsidies? (Or for that matter that the USDA and FDA have approved many things without sufficiently rigorous peer-reviewed studies of potential effects?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:47 PM

25. Right on. No mention of Glyphosate. GMOs mean LOTS MORE DEATH CHEMS

You can't have GMO crud without LOTS MORE DEATH CHEMS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:49 PM

26. scary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:23 AM

30. The Guardian: Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators

<snip>
Here are the criticisms in a nutshell and Séralini's responses:

1. The French researchers were accused of using the Sprague Dawley rat strain which is said to be prone to developing cancers. In response Séralini and his team say these are the same rats as used by Monsanto in the 90-day trials which it used to get authorisation for its maize. This strain of rat has been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have long been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products.

2. The sample size of rats was said to be too small. Séralini responded that six is the OECD recommended protocol for GM food safety toxicology studies and he had based his study on the toxicity part of OECD protocol no. 453. This states that for a cancer trial you need a minimum of 50 animals of each sex per test group but for a toxicity trial a minimum of 10 per sex suffices. Monsanto used 20 rats of each sex per group in its feeding trials but only analysed 10, the same number as Séralini.

3. No data was given about the rats' food intake. Seralini says the rats were allowed to eat as much food as they liked.

4. Séralini has not released the raw data from the trial. In response he says he won't release it until the data underpinning Monsanto's authorisation of NK603 in Europe is also made public.

5. His funding was provided by an anti-biotechnology organisation whose scientific board Séralini heads. But he counters that almost all GM research is funded by corporates or by pro-biotech institutions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:50 AM

31. Even the French don't believe this study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread